Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser., 1887-09-16
Mr. COwen Explains.

friend OF Mr.. Germans and has always
contributed literally to the Democratic
campaign fund, while the great majority
of the directors are firm supporters of the
regular Democracy. He alleges that Mr..
Garrett's last injunction to him (Cowen)
when he left for Europe WIS not to take
any part in the campaign. He urges that
both the Sun and Mr.. German are we'll
aware of these facts and he charges that it
is base ingratitude in Mr.. German to per-
nit the road to be held responsible for
his iCowen's) political regeneration as is
now being done by the State press.
1t is probable that Mr.. Cowen has made
out his case, or at least that part of it in
which he seeks to prove that he is not
seconded by the railroad company in his
inconsiderate flop over to the Republicans.
1t is safe to say that no level headed cor
porate Management, to whatever extent it
may have given its coninvance at the
start, would now admit responsibility for
political trick which gives so little pro-
mise of bringing any beneficial return.
Mr.. Cowen has been repudisted by all the
reform Democrats with whom he claimed
fellowship and whose alliance he so con-
fdently promised to the Republicans. He
is like that other Benedict Arnold of the
revolutionary times, he has failed to de-
liver the citadel which he thought he
commanded to the enemy according to
promise. 1t must affect him with chagrin
to perceive that his great flop over, which
he thought would create such terror in
the Democratic camp, has only excited
little merriment.
1t is manly in Mr.. Cowen to try to ex-
culpate his company from completely in
his own bad doings and it will be graft
flying to the native people of the State to
know that this powerful corporation
which has received SO many favors at the
hands Of the State of Maryland is not
willing to follow its astute attorney from
Ohio into the bad company he has tried
to lead it into.
But Mr.. Cowen DIES not to our mind
prove conclusively his proposition that the
State of Maryland has moi, ,either by organic
or other laws. the power to increase the tax
able responsibilities of the B. & 0. COM
pany, and that therefore the B. & o. has
nothing to fear from q new constitution.
1t will be observed that his extended ar
guments to this point are not without
some considerable inconsistencies in their
chain of logic. While he insists and bases
bis argument upon the proposition that
the Settlement Act" passed by the Legis
lature of 1878 whereby the immunities of
the B. & o. company were sought to be
settled and confirmed, although it varied
materially the terms of the original i'm
munity As contained in the charter, is an
irrevocable contract on the part Of the
State of Maryland which cau16lSzniu
pealed by the people at any aisM Asu
either by an organic or 9th. isw. but q
little further along he insists that the act
of 1880 comforting immunities upon the
Northern Central railroad company is
clearly repealable. Hence he concludes
with apparent satisfaction to himself, that
while the B. s. o. company, whose immu-
nifty from taxation rests upon the act of
1878, has nothing to fear from new con-
stitutios because the act of 1878 exempt
ing the B. s. O. is an irrevocable contract !;
that the Norther Central has much to
fear from a new constitution because its
immunity contained in the act of 1880 is
clearly repealasls.
The average mind will fail to clearly
apprehend this subtle logical distinction.
If it be conceded that rbe Legislature Of
the State may pass an act materially alter
ing, under the pretense of a settlement, the
origina! immunity of . corporation as laid
down in its charter, and that such settle
ment of the immunity of such corporation,
because expressed by the Legislature to
be final, shall be forever binding on the
people of the State without power of re
peal, then indeed we shall have establish
ed a most dangerous and mischievous pre-
cedent. And yet this is the burden Of
Mr.. Cowen's argument upon this point
All corporation would then have to do
would be to corrupt one Legislature with
its Doodle and it could saddle any burden
it might desire upon the people for all
time.
The fact is the application of this con
tract clause" of the Federal constitution,
as it is so fippantly called, to business
corporations, has proved very obnoxious
to the people of the States; and most of
them have taken steps in their organic
laws to forestall such mischievous doc
trine. Maryland did it as early as 1850
and no fears need be appre hended that
any future constitutional convention will
ever take backward step in that matter.
The B. s. O. company, having obtained
its original charter prior to 1850, is no
doubt secure in its immunity to the ertent
Of its original charter exemption, but no fur
thsr certainly. But when Mr.. Cowen
claims that the act of 1878 is an irrevo-
cable contract he shows the weakness OF
his position.
The people doubtless have the right in
constitutional convention to review the
action of the Legislature of 1878 in its
settlement with the B. & O., and confirm
or reject the same as justice may seem to
require. As the B. & o. is withou: doubt
very much satisfied with that settlement,
it would evidently prefer that no such re-
view be had and this may be reasonably